DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2010-216 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
 
This proceeding was conducted according to the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and 
 
section 425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  The Chair docketed the case upon receipt of 
the  applicant’s  completed  application  on  July  29,  2010,  and  subsequently  prepared  the  final 
decision for the Board as required by 33 CFR § 52.61(c). 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  April  28,  2011,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
The applicant asked the Board to correct his record by changing his RE-3G1 reenlistment 
 
code so that he is eligible to enlist in another branch of the Armed Forces.  Prior to enlisting in 
the Coast Guard on March 16, 2006, the applicant had served in the Marine Corps for four years.   
 

The  applicant  stated  that  he  was  in  the  prior  service  training  program,  but  he  was  not 
allowed the full 3 weeks to complete the swimming qualification.  He stated that a determination 
was made at the end of the first week of training that he had not progressed enough to qualify 
within the 3-week period.  Therefore, he, along with some others, was removed from the prior 
service training program at the end of the first week and required to start training all over.   He 
asked to be sent home because he believed that he had been treated unfairly. The applicant was 
discharged honorably  on April 14, 2006, due to  unsuitability, with  an RE-4 reenlistment code 
(not eligible to reenlist) and a JNC2 (unacceptable conduct) separation code.  

 
                                                 
1 RE-3G means that a member is eligible to reenlist, except for a condition, not a physical disability, that interferes 
with the performance of duty.   
2 According to the Separation Program Designator (SPD) Handbook, the JNC separation code means that a member 
has been involuntarily discharged for acts of unacceptable conduct, such as moral or professional dereliction.   

  

Applicant’s Discharge from the Coast Guard 

 
On April  3,  2006,  the  commanding  officer  (CO)  of  the  Coast  Guard  Training  Center, 
Cape May informed the applicant that action had been initiated to discharge him from the Coast 
Guard with an honorable discharge due to unsuitability because he had refused to train.  On the 
same  date,  the  applicant  acknowledged  the  proposed  discharge,  waived  his  right  to  submit  a 
statement in his behalf, and did not object to his discharge. 

 
Also, on April 3, 2006, the CO asked Commander, Coast Guard Personnel Service Center 
(PSC) for authority to discharge the applicant for unacceptable conduct by reason of unsuitability 
due  to  inaptitude.3    The  CO  stated  that  the  applicant  reported  for  basic  training  in  the  prior 
service training program on March 16, 2006.  However, on March 27, 2006, the applicant failed 
to pass the physical fitness requirements and was placed in a regular eight-week recruit company 
to afford him the extra time and instruction that would enable him to complete the areas in which 
he was deficient.  The CO stated that on March 28, 2006, the applicant stated that he wanted to 
quit  the  program  and  refused  to  train  further.   The  CO  stated  that  although  the  applicant  was 
counseled at length, he still refused to train and maintained his request to be discharged from the 
Coast Guard.   

 
On April 10, 2006, PSC authorized the applicant’s discharge from the Coast Guard with 
an honorable discharge by reason of unsuitability due to inaptitude.  PSC also directed that the 
JNC separation code be assigned to the applicant.  The applicant was discharged on April 14, 
2006.  He had served on active duty in the Coast Guard for 30 days at the time of his discharge.   
 
Discharge Review Board (DRB) Decision 
 

Prior  to  filing  his  application  with  the  Board,  the  applicant  sought  relief  from  the 
Discharge Review Board (DRB).  A majority of the DRB (4 of 5) voted to change the narrative 
reason  for  the  applicant’s  discharge  from  unsuitability  to  “physical  standards,”  his  separation 
code  from  JNC  (unacceptable  conduct)  to  KFT4  (physical  standards),  the  separation  authority 
from Article 12.B.16 (unsuitability) of the Personnel Manual to Article 12.B.12 (convenience of 
the government),  and his reenlistment code from RE-4 (not eligible to reenlist) to RE-3G.5  On 
November 10, 2009, the Commandant approved the DRB majority decision (DRB) 

 
The DRB noted in its decision that it had only the evidence submitted by the applicant 
and  could  not  properly  adjudicate  the  case  due  to  a  lack  of  documentation  regarding  the 

                                                 
3   Article 12.B.16.b.1. of the Personnel Manual explains that an unsuitability discharge due to inaptitude applies to 
members  best  described  as  unfit  due  to  lack  of  general  adaptability,  want  or  readiness  of  skill,  clumsiness,  or 
inability to learn.   
4      The  KFT  separation  code  is  assigned  when  a  voluntary  discharge  is  allowed  by  established  directive  for  a 
member who fails to meet established physical readiness standards. 
5   The minority of the DRB voted to change the narrative reason for the applicant’s discharge to failure to complete 
course of instruction, his separation code to KHF (means same as narrative reason), and his reenlistment code to RE-
1 (eligible to reenlist).  The minority stated that it appears that the applicant’s request for a voluntary discharge was 
granted and that failure of instruction appears to be the proper basis.  The minority also stated that the applicant’s 
honorable discharge from the Marine Corps was a mitigating factor.    

applicant’s separation.  Nonetheless, the DRB stated that the applicant’s inability to swim should 
not preclude him from service in another branch of the military, if that was the only reason for 
the applicant’s discharge.   The DRB stated that an RE-1 reenlistment code was not appropriate 
in this case because the applicant could not swim, and to assign an RE-1 would misrepresent the 
applicant’s abilities to an Armed Forces Recruiter.  The DRB noted that an RE-3G provides the 
applicant with the opportunity for immediate reenlistment in the Armed Services without seeking 
a waiver if he meets the swimming qualification required by a particular branch of the Service. 
The Coast Guard has corrected the applicant’s record to reflect the changes ordered by the DRB 
through the issuance of DD 215.    

 
On July 19, 2010, the BCMR received the applicant’s application seeking an upgrade of 

the RE-3G reenlistment code to RE-1.     
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On November 10, 2010, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted 
an  advisory  opinion  recommending  that  the  Board  deny  relief  as  recommended  by  the 
Commander, Personnel Service Center (PSC).  PSC stated the following: 
 

[On  April  3,  2006],  Training  Center  Cape  May  requested  discharge  of  the 
applicant for his refusal to train and desire to quit as a result of failing to pass the 
physical fitness requirements of basic training.   
 
[On  April  3,  2006]  the  applicant  was  formally  notified  that  he  was  being 
recommended for discharge pursuant to his refusal to train. 
 
[On April  3,  2006],  the  applicant  did  not  object  to  being  discharged  from  the 
Coast Guard.   
 
[On  April  14,  2006],  the  applicant  was  honorably  discharged  for  reason  of 
unsuitability  and  received  a  separation  code  of  JNC  and  reentry  code  of  RE-4, 
making him ineligible for reenlistment.   
 
[On February 18, 2009], the applicant successfully petitioned the Coast Guard’s 
[DRB] for a reentry code upgrade.  Upon approval from the Commandant  . . .  
the applicant’s reentry code was changed to RE-3G. 
 
[T]he  reenlistment  code,  RE-3G,  makes  the  applicant  “eligible  for  reenlistment 
except for a disqualifying factor.”  In the applicant’s case, the reenlistment code 
RE-3G  signifies  a  “Condition  (not  physical  disability) 
interfering  with 
performance of duty.”   
 
[According to a DD 215 issued on November 24, 2009], the applicant’s record . . . 
was officially amended to reflect the outcome adjudicated by the DRB . . . .   
 

[T]he applicant is able to reenlist but must first “prove the disqualifying factor has 
been  resolved  before  enlistment  can  take  place.”    If  the  applicant  chooses  to 
reenlist, he must go through a service recruiter to initiate this accession process.  
 
PSC concurs with the findings of the [DRB] . . . in their  entirety,  as the Coast 
Guard is presumptively correct with the administrative discharge of this applicant.  
The applicant has failed to substantiate any error or injustice with regard to [his] 
record.     
   
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On November 15, 2010, the Board mailed a copy of the views of the Coast Guard to the 

 
 
applicant for a response.  The Board did not receive a reply from the applicant.    
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 

 
 
 

The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the applicant's 

 
 
military record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submissions, and applicable law: 
 

1. The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 of title 10 

of the United States Code.  The application was timely. 

 
2.  The  DRB  changed  the  narrative  reason  for  the  applicant’s  discharge,  his  separation 
code,  and  his  reenlistment  code  from  RE-4  to  RE-3G.    The  only  issue  before  this  Board  is 
whether the RE-3G reenlistment code should be upgraded to RE-1, as requested by the applicant.    
The Board is not persuaded to upgrade the applicant’s RE-3G reenlistment code and finds that 
the RE-3G is generous, considering the applicant’s attitude and stern refusal to train, even though 
he had failed to pass the physical fitness requirements and the Coast Guard was willing to allow 
him additional time to meet them.  Additionally, an RE-1 would mislead recruiters into believing 
that the applicant had no problems during his short enlistment, which is simply not the case.   
 

3.  Moreover, the Separation Program Designator (SPD) Handbook is the authority for 
assigning  reenlistment  codes.  In  this  regard,  the  SPD  Handbook  does  not  authorize  the 
assignment of an RE-1 reenlistment code with the KFT separation code, but it does authorize an 
RE-3G for a failure to meet physical readiness standards.       
    

4.  The Board notes that an RE-3G is not a bar to reenlistment.  The applicant can apply 
for  reenlistment  in  the  Armed  Forces,  but  must  show  that  he  can  meet  the  swimming 
qualification for those Services that require it.    

 
5.  Accordingly, the applicant’s request for an RE-1 reenlistment code should be denied.   

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

The  application  of  former  XXXXXXXXXXXXX  USCG,  for  correction  of  his  military 

ORDER 

 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
Anthony C. DeFelice 

 

 

 

 
Peter G. Hartman 

 

 

 
Vicki J. Ray 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

record is denied.